Not happy with 2.0 litre fuel economy (CVT)

[steve83]

Take a look when you first drive off in the morning, should say 20+ L/100K.

hehe...

Stop start traffic will always return pretty high results. I don't normally drive in stop start traffic but when I do I usually get about 10-11L/100km in my manual. Driving at a constant 80+km/h would return 6L/100km.[/url]

[Bandit]

At highway speeds I reckon you'd actually get better fuel economy in CVT than manual with our 5 speeders.... the CVT has higher gearing in top "6th" and revs lower at 100km/h+ than the manual....

Where's my 6th gear

[WTR]

CVT is 30 kg heavier, though...

[Bandit]

I am about 20kg overweight myself LOL.....

[WTR]

In that case, take a dump before attempting max speed run .....

[Gleno]

Im curious as to why they didnt go the 6th gear in a manual??

[WTR]

Cost !!

[dannyboi]

Going to work everyday, I average about 17 lt/100 km. This is most likely due to the stop-start traffic and cold start for the short distance.

[MyVRX08]

I work in the city and drive roughly 50K up and down and I receive the first fuel warning anywhere in between 510-550Kms. While considering traffic and lights I am very happy with the mileage.

And as everyone said best way to accurately measure the mileage is by doing full tank or atleast half while noting down readings.

Cheers!!

[scraverX]

I can go Sydney and back to Canberra, including some driving IN sydney without having to fill up (if I start with a full tank) and I have a good.... 50-60+ kg of audio in my car.

[squala]

I average about the same on a 2.0 CVT with similar scenarios. I'm not happy either but I always tend to have a lead-foot when the lights turn green because I just feel that the CVT doesn't respond too well in D. I try to slide it to manual mode sometimes and it seems to be quicker from rest.

The RPW tune is something I like to do soon and hopefully this would make the car more responsive and also return better economy with a lighter foot application.

[Usif]

I'm gonna be honest guys... From driving a 2.4L 2003 Camry to the lancer; I Love it... 500km+ Average tank; which by my standards is bloody beautiful, since the Camry barely creeped up on 450km... I Think Mits. did a good job with it in all honesty.. Without destorying too much power.

[raeburk]

you could try running premium 98 in it. that seems to give my car better klms per tank .

[Gleno]

I average about the same on a 2.0 CVT with similar scenarios. I'm not happy either but I always tend to have a lead-foot when the lights turn green because I just feel that the CVT doesn't respond too well in D. I try to slide it to manual mode sometimes and it seems to be quicker from rest.

The RPW tune is something I like to do soon and hopefully this would make the car more responsive and also return better economy with a lighter foot application.

The car responds well to the RPW tune, however only if you use the manual option of the CVT.I have found that if you drive it in auto, i
can't tell the difference since the tune. As for fuel economy, i took everyones advice and filled it up and reset the trip computer. Unfortunatly I'm still getting poor results, done 150 kms and have used close to half a tank.

I'm driving to Queensland next week so be interesting to see what figures I will get on the highway.